Decision

Decision for Orion Demolition Limited (OK2054333)

Published 5 October 2022

0.1 In the South-East and Metropolitan Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner

1.1 Orion Demolition Limited OK2054333

2. Background

This is an application for a standard national licence by Orion Demolition Limited requesting authorisation for five vehicles and one trailer. The director of the applicant company is Pravin Vishram Varsani.
Pravin Varsani was the director of O M Skips & Recycling Limited who held an operator’s licence from 13 April 2010 until 1 December 2014 when the licence was revoked. At previous inquiries curtailment of the licence and a warning had been ordered.
A licence was granted to JSK Haulage Limited on the 31 August 2017 when the director was Jasoda Varsine, the wife of Pravin Varsani. Undertakings were accepted which included a requirement that Mr Varsani would not be involved in the management or day to day running of the business. A breach of this undertaking was found as well as other compliance failings and the licence was revoked on the 6 December 2018.
On the 17 July 2019 an application for a licence by Orion Ram Limited was refused. Mr Varsani was the sole director of the company. The Traffic Commissioner advised him as part of her decision that he should wait “approximately a year” before applying again and should expect to show a “demonstrable history of lawful driving, no hint of unlawful operation and give truthful answers to what will be very straightforward questions.”
The current application was lodged on the 11 March 2022. On the 7 February 2022 I saw Mr Varsani at a driver conduct hearing when he admitted offences of making a false entry in relation to his driver’s hours by removing his tachograph from the reader and continuing to drive. He also admitted committing offences of failing to take required weekly rest and carrying an insecure load. I ordered the suspension of his LGV licence entitlement for 21 days in respect of these offences. At the time of the stop on the 11 May 2021 Mr Varsani said he was employed by AYD Waste Management Services Limited.
The offences dealt with at the conduct hearing were not disclosed in this application nor was the liquidation of a previous company. As Mr Varsini’s conduct appeared to be contrary to the expectations set out by the Traffic Commissioner in 2019 the application was called to inquiry. Prior to the inquiry I located the papers which had been considered at the conduct hearing on the 7 February and a copy was sent to Mr Varsani and his representatives.

3. The Public Inquiry

Mr Varsini attended the enquiry together with the proposed transport manager Ryan Djemi and was represented by counsel Mr Campbell.
Mr Campbell submitted that the key issue for me to consider was the impact of the offences and surrounding circumstances which I had considered on the 7 February 2022, and I agreed with the proposition.

3.1 Evidence

Mr Varsini gave evidence and I referred to him to the statements that had been submitted as evidence on the 7 February. I pointed out that these referred to two vehicles YK65 MYD and GN65 PYB which had been driven by him in the 28-day period prior to the stop on the 21 May 2021.
Enquiries by DVSA officers showed that the registered keeper of GN65 PYB was Orion Demolition and Mr Varsani was the sole director of that company. YK65 MYD had been authorised on the operator’s licence for Mallinson Yorkshire Limited until the 13 February 2021 and a representative of that company said that the vehicle had been sold to Orion Demolition on the 21 February 2021. The vehicle was listed on the operator’s licence held by AYD Waste Management Limited from the 2 July 2021.
Subsequent enquiries at the authorised operating centre for AYD Waste Management Limited revealed that the owners of the centre had no tenant of that name but they did have a 28 day licence arrangement in place with Mr Varsani as the director of Orion Demolition Limited. Attempts were made to arrange an interview with Mr Varsani and a letter was hand delivered to his last known address, but no response was received.
I also pointed out to Mr Varsani that my handwritten note from the hearing in February recorded that he had said the vehicle he was driving on the 11 May 2021, YK65 MYD “was his and he was self-employed”. There was a further note to say he was self- employed undertaking skip hire”
I asked Mr Varsani about the events of May 2021 and his answers were contradictory and unconvincing. He told me initially that he had been operating YK65 MYD at the time but subsequently said to Mr Campbell that he had only been driving the vehicle. He referred to arrangements with the director of AYD Waste Management, Mr Antoine as if the business was a joint venture and then said he was self-employed and Mr Antoine paid him. He had bought the two vehicles for AYD Waste to use and had allowed that company to use his two spaces at the operating centre. He had not received the letter from the DVSA asking him to attend an interview. He could not remember saying he was a self-employed skip driver when he attended the driver conduct hearing in February 2022.
The proposed transport manager Mr Djemil gave brief evidence outlining his experience and current appointments.

3.2 Findings and Decision

In considering this case I remind myself that this is an application and it is for the applicant to satisfy me that the statutory criteria for the grant of a licence are made out. The only issue in this case is whether the criterion of repute is shown.
When Mr Varsani’s application was refused by the Traffic Commissioner in July 2019 she indicated that he should wait a year before applying again and at that time demonstrate a history of lawful driving, no hint of any unlawful operation and give truthful answers to straightforward questions. I find that he has failed to achieve any of those requirements before me. The offences which occurred on the 21 May 2021 were themselves evidence of unlawful driving but were made much worse by the subsequent enquires by the DVSA officers. These enquiries show that Mr Varsani was once again operating without a licence, and I make a finding to this effect. He owned the two vehicles under consideration and the tachograph records show they were used regularly during the period in question, he rented parking spaces for those vehicles in his company’s name and told me at the conduct hearing and initially at this hearing that he was operating. His answers when giving evidence at this hearing were evasive and inconsistent and therefore in my view untruthful at least in part.
For these reasons I have no hesitation in refusing the application on the ground that the applicant company have failed to demonstrate the repute required for a licence to be granted.
Mr Campbell requested that, if the application was refused, I provide an indication of when Mr Varsani may be able to make another application and the circumstances that might point to a likelihood of grant. I have considered this request but have decided not to give any indication. Whilst this can be appropriate, particularly in cases where additional knowledge or experience is needed, this is not the case here. The issue with Mr Varsani is one of trust and it would be wrong to say that in 12 or 24 months he should be able to demonstrate that he can be trusted. He has shown over several years a willingness to ignore the regulatory requirements surrounding operator licensing and unless this changes fundamentally, he will find it hard to persuade a commissioner that he can be trusted. It is for him, and those advising him, to decide when this will be.

John Baker

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

14 September 2022